[sokoloff]

> But just the fact that a car was in a collision or had a claim against it does not automatically affect the car's ... resale value.

What? Accidents, even after repair, decrease the resale value of a car, significantly in the case of a young or exotic car, less so for an older, more pedestrian car.

Having been in an accident removes some possible buyers from the pool. (Some buyers will not knowingly buy a car with damage history.) That necessarily changes the balance of supply and demand for that car.

If you had a choice between buying a car that was in a crash and repaired versus the otherwise identically equipped car that had never been crashed, which would you choose? Lots of buyers prefer the latter option, which is why they're worth more than the former option.

[bityard]

I'm saying that accidents (depending on the severity) do not necessarily decrease the resale value of the car. You're saying that a car in an accident has a smaller pool or buyers. These can both be true.

There are two ways to sell a sub-prime car: 1) lower the price, and 2) wait for a less-than-diligent buyer to come along. Many private sellers and dealerships are perfectly fine with #2.

Lots of people do not know how to check for unreported previous damage to a car, and lots of people do not care if the car was in an accident as long as it was repaired, has no obvious damage, drives just fine, and has a green title. These are the people who eventually buy those cars.